This essay considers two biblical tales each involving a paternally
initiated oath to the Israelite god, YHWH. Both fathers
unintentionally offer his child as a sacrifice, one for a fulfillment
of the oath and the other for transgression. Both oaths arise from
the misguided and unwise actions of the fathers. The first story is
that of Jephtha, the bastard son of a prostitute who had been driven
away by his legitimate brothers only to be recalled in order to lead
an attack against their oppressor, the Ammonites, in a time of
apostasy:

If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine
hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of
my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of
Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt
offering1

The second oath is that of Saul whose army is rescued by Jonathan,
Saul’s son, after a near catastrophe in battle with the
Philistines: “Cursed be the man that eateth any food until
evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies.”2

Before continuing, I would like to call attention to the moral
significance of these narratives in reaction to the tendency from,
what I will refer to as, the “secular reader” to focus on
the barbarism of such narratives rather than focusing on, or even to
the exclusion of, the real point. As a secular reader, it is
difficult to whisk away the colorings of contemporary Jewish
interpretation, Christian interpretation, as well as reactionary
atheistic interpretation. Because this is a non-dogmatic research
paper, I do not intend to criticize Jewish or Christian
interpretation, but instead wish to address the common tendencies in
atheistic interpretations in attempt to assess the nature of morality
contained in the two biblical narratives more accurately.

Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent atheists currently in the
limelight of anti-religiosity, offers a thoroughly condemning summary
of Jephtha’s story in his 2006 book, The God Delusion.
This quote is taken after Dawkins mentions Jephtha’s return
home from battle to see his daughter come out of the door of his
house:

Understandably Jephtha rent his clothes, but there was nothing he
could do

about it. God was obviously looking forward to the promised burnt

offering […] God did not see fit to intervene on this
occasion3

There is no doubt to the fact that YHWH did not intervene, but it is
not so simple a matter to say that he was looking forward to the
burnt offering.

To the secular reader, Dawkins’ interpretation is infinitely
more sensible than one that involves faith in divine will, but
Dawkins’ view undermines his own skepticism in the literal
sense of being thoughtful and reflective. The essential flaws in the
atheistic interpretation of biblical texts is in the tendency to make
interpretations in reaction to dogmatic interpretations and the lack
of understanding YHWH’s motives. I do not intend this to be an
argument against the overall thesis of The God Delusion, just
against the devaluing of literature on account of anti-religious
reactionism. Essentially, I wish to find middle ground between
religious fervor and anti-religious fervor.

In the case of Abraham, the secular reader doesn’t have much
of a problem with the text because barbarism is avoided, nor in
Saul’s story because Jonathan is spared and also because of
Saul’s obvious decline from favor. Abraham’s near
sacrifice of Isaac is obviously a test that YHWH had no intention of
making Abraham fulfill. Jonathan is likewise saved by the will of
YHWH working through the actions of the troops. Why, then, doesn’t
YHWH do the same for Jephtha’s daughter? As a secular reader,
we can very easily come away with an answer similar to Dawkins’,
that YHWH is simply bloodthirsty.4
But the principal difference is that in Jephtha’s case, it is
not a test, it is a punishment. However, we have to treat the
punishment as more aimed at Jephtha himself or we have to treat
Jephtha’s household as one entity: an individual sin incurs an
inclusive punishment. To a secular reader, someone paying for someone
else’s sin seems a ludicrous and ineffective approach to law
enforcement. But what is really happening with this text is
comparable to a modern-day corporation with a rouge employee who does
something illegal that catches the public eye. In most cases, it
would not be only the individual who takes the blame. Indeed, the
employee would probably lose his job, but the company itself feels
most of the damage. In the Old Testament, this is not a unique
occurrence of such unified responsibility. Innumerable individuals in
the Old Testament bring disaster upon not only their entire
household but upon their lineage as well.5
This is not to excuse barbarism, but we are making a mistake when we
impute our own contemporary, Kantian morals into a text.6

So, what exactly is Jephtha’s sin? In one sense, we have to
say that the punishment of YHWH not intervening is one that results
from Jephtha’s attempt to manipulate YHWH or bargain with him.
The first word in his oath, “If,” is a dangerous one; it
marks a conditional clause. Herein this word lies the crux of what is
important to YHWH: faith is not conditional in any circumstance. This
is not to say that Jephtha’s oath was to the effect of “If
you don’t do this for me, I will reject you.” The
interpretation I am proposing is more along the lines of “If
you, YHWH, do something for me, then I will do something for you,”
whereas Jephtha should have been doing something for YHWH all along.
Even if he hadn’t been, he shouldn’t have asked YHWH for
the favor because if YHWH wills destruction for someone, they are to
assume the deed is righteous. In a sense, Jephtha’s proposal to
YHWH is a preemptive, albeit unintentional, rejection of his god.7

The sin of attempting to manipulate YHWH is, in the context of the
Old Testament, greater in degree than that of killing one’s
own daughter. This is an area of potential misunderstanding that a
secular reader can easily, and understandably, fall into.
Manipulation is an attempt to gain power over YHWH, a small
rebellion, and YHWH does not look too kindly on rebellion, for it is
“the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity
and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he
hath also rejected thee from being king.”8
This is, of course, Samuel addressing Saul, but it is applicable to
the sins committed by both Saul and Jephtha. It is not the sinister
quality of witchcraft that we might think of in a contemporary
context, like devil worship or something deliberately evil.
Witchcraft is only sinister in this society because it isn’t
the worship of YHWH; it is deistic infidelity. But, of course, if one
is not worshipping YHWH, he is in opposition to YHWH. This turns the
witchcraft, or we might just call it idolatry, into a hostile action
against the Israelite god.9

The secular reader has an advantage when reading this story because
of his disinterestedness—that is, the secular reader who does
not have an active un-interest in dogmatic interpretation. Because it
is simply fiction, the secular reader does not have to take the moral
lesson seriously. If this lesson of Jephtha and his oath were applied
in contemporary western society, there is no doubt that a secular
person would consider YHWH a bloodthirsty monster for allowing an
innocent child to be murdered on behalf of his monomaniacal pride.
However, in no other literary instance do we rightly object to a
fictional set of values to the extent that we reject the text itself.
Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” is a fitting
example. The values presented are repulsive. The tradition of the
lottery which involves the ritual murder of an unlucky town member is
more important than common, Kantian values. This story certainly
incurred criticism for being immoral when it was first published in
1948, but this is the same mistake of rejecting the Jephtha story.
And any serious literary critic would by now reject the rejection of
Jackson’s story on the grounds of it being immoral.

The idolatry of Jephtha is not easy to see upon first reading, but
he commits it by being more concerned with his political career than
the will of his god. Thus, YHWH’s motives for turning Jephtha’s
oath malignant become apparent. This is YHWH’s way of letting
everyone know what approach to being a judge is appropriate, or at
least what approach is not appropriate. This also brings us to
another dimension of the punishment. The punishment for attempted
manipulation is more expansive than I have already stated. It is an
inclusive punishment with respect to Jephtha and his household, but
in a mild sense, inclusive to all of Israel as well. Jephtha’s
status allowed him to serve as an example to the entire Israelite
community.

When Israel moves into the era of kingship, YHWH has an identical
motive. A king is close to being an idol, and instead of attempting
to consider YHWH’s will, the Israelites become servants of the
king. Thus, YHWH appoints a failure to reveal folly of their
misplaced trust.10
The primary difference between Jephtha’s story and the story of
Israel appointing a king, is the difference between a personal,
intimate sin and a collective sin committed by an entire society.
However, the collective sin that Israel experiences as a result of
asking for a king is contingent upon Saul making personal sins. His
arrogance is apparent in his oath: “Cursed be the man that
eateth any food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine
enemies.” Saul’s principal mistake is in taking the
battle personally when he is a mere actor in YHWH’s script. It
does not make sense for an actor to take the events of a certain plot
personally because he has agreed to act out the will of the author.

Another difference between the two stories is that Jephtha’s
oath is fulfilled with the sacrifice of his daughter and Saul’s
oath is thwarted by the troops’ objection—however, credit
is given to YHWH for preventing Jonathan’s death. Perhaps the
reason YHWH spares Jonathan is the same reason that Dawkins does not
attack that particular narrative: Saul’s loss of favor is
obvious to any reader, so Dawkins has nothing to complain about; and
YHWH doesn’t need to allow Jonathan to die to prove to everyone
that Saul is a bad king. And even if Saul had sacrificed
Jonathan, Dawkins would have a hard time criticizing the text for its
immorality because the values of Saul’s actions are not
ambiguous. He is censured by Samuel on numerous occasions and gets
the silent treatment from YHWH. He is even reduced to seeking the aid
of the Which of Endor. These punishments and slander would not be
considered sufficient in a real-life, contemporary setting, in fact,
they seem innocuous. But the secular reader should have little
difficulty accepting this set of fictional values, that theses
punishments are indeed severe to the biblical characters.

One then is left with the question that if the punishments that Saul
had suffered were severe, why didn’t YHWH simply show the same
decline in favor with Jephtha instead of allowing the unnamed
daughter to die? Wouldn’t this be better proof of YHWH’s
superiority and morality? I have already stated my first answer to
this question: the murder of Jephtha’s daughter is really a
punishment for Jephtha himself because she is a symbol of his
household. This is not entirely satisfying to a secular reader, so I
propose a second answer in an explanation of YHWH’s motives for
sparing Jonathan rather than further addressing the Jephtha story.
The real motive YHWH has in sparing Jonathan is not mercy, it is not
on account of his righteousness, nor the righteousness of the troops.
YWHW spares Jonathan because he wants to accentuate Saul’s
folly by showing his need for the aid of the troops’ moral
opinion to guide him. Saul is such a bad leader that his subjects
tell him what to do, and furthermore, his son receives more respect.
All of YHWH’s motives come down to the overall lesson that he
wants the Israelite community to grasp and repetitively consider:
only worship YHWH; by appointing a king, you have consigned
yourselves to folly, rebellion, idolatry, “the sin of
witchcraft”; by attempting to manipulate YHWH, you do the
same.

In light of this, we could easily picture YHWH having allowed
Jonathan to be sacrificed if only the oath had been made by a more
favorable individual than Saul and in a different circumstance. In
fact, YHWH is so unconcerned with the fate of one individual that he
does not fully spare Jonathan. He only defers his damnation. For,
when Samuel and YHWH reject Saul, they do so in a more similar way to
Jephtha’s household than first meets the eye.

Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the

LORD thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the LORD

have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. / But now thy
kingdom

shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own
heart,

and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people,

because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee11

The “man after his own heart” is of course David who
takes over after Saul and Jonathan die. Thus it is not only Saul who
has been rejected by YHWH, but his lineage as well. “Thy
kingdom shall not continue” essentially means his genetic
kingdom will not continue as it would have been, and certainly not at
the seat of power.

Conclusion

This interpretation of the deferment of Jonathan’s damnation
bridges the gap between the two ostensibly morally disparate
narratives. What on the surface appears to show YHWH’s
capriciousness, saving some and allowing others to die, actually
shows just how consistent YHWH is. The secular reader is confused by
this and comes to misguided conclusions because what is at stake in
his world, Kantian morality, is not in YHWH’s. In YHWH’s
world view—or should we say universe view12—the
most important thing that matters is trusting in YHWH and remembering
his superiority.

I sincerely doubt that this essay would change the mind of Richard
Dawkins or others who think about biblical barbarism in the same way.
In fact, I think this essay actually would appeal more to the
fundamentalist religious demographic on account of the difficulty in
making sense of the texts in question. It is unsatisfying for a
fundamentalist to think that YHWH is always changing his mind in
matters of morality. To the fundamentalist, the barbarism is not an
impediment to appreciation of the texts. This is the very opposite in
the case of anti-religious reactionists. However, as I have said, the
intention of this paper is not to condemn atheists or to encourage
fundamentalists. It is to look at the bible as literature rather than
either evidence of supernatural inspiration or evidence of religious
barbarism. The middle-ground between the two is that the secular
reader should be as concerned with YHWH’s morality to the same
extent that he is concerned with Iago’s morality or Peter Pan’s
morality.

Bible,
King James Version. Electronic text provided by Oxford Text
Archive. Last

updated:
8-11-06. Access date: 5-9-07. <http://ota.ahds.ac.uk/>.

1
Judges 11:30-31. Some scholars have argued that Jephtha did not
actually sacrifice his daughter but that he thwarted her maternal
potential, that the offering was her right to be wed. This essay
does not take up that issue, but assumes that by “offer,”
death is implied.

2
1 Samuel 14:24

3
Dawkins 243

4
YHWH most certainly is a warrior-god and has frequent bloodthirsty
tendencies. This I do not contend. However, my point is that there
is more to it to that, and also, to a secular reader, YHWH’s
being bloodthirsty is of little consequence since YHWH does not
determine a secular person’s moral consciousness, nor does it
tarnish his reputation by connection to such an ugly history.

5
I will discuss this further with Saul and Jonathan.

6
By Kantian values, I mean simply that a person is to be considered
an end and not a means to an end.

7
Perhaps by contemporary standards, Jephtha’s real sin was in
unnecessarily jeopardizing his household. Why not promise a cattle
offering or to simply be a good person if successful in battle?

8
1 Samuel 15:23

9
One might even consider YHWH a sort of conscious meme. A meme is a
unit of cultural transmission that fights for survival in a similar
way that genes fight for survival in the gene pool—interestingly,
Richard Dawkins coined the phrase in his 1976 book, The Selfish
Gene. YHWH’s jealousy and threats, then, serve to keep him
in the meme pool.

10
Actually, Saul was not a failure until he became king and YHWH
tampered with his heart: “And it was so, that when he had
turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart”
(1 Samuel 10:9).

11
1 Samuel 13:13-14

12
Considering that YHWH is primarily a deity of national identity in
the time of Judges and 1 Samuel, it would actually be most accurate
to say “Israel-view.”